On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 2:40:22 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 09:05:02 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2020 at 5:28:35 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 10:01:12 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:
Speaking of disinformation and BS, show us where Steele even admitted
any of his report was BS. Steele said from the beginning that it was
what it was, raw intelligence that was not corroborated.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ssier-accurate
the claim is it is 70-90% accurate. If he didn't think 30% could be
bull****, why did he say 70%?
Also isn't this a foreigner trying to influence our election? He did
turn this over to Hillary.
Apples and oranges. It's perfectly legal for a campaign to do
opposition research, including overseas. If Steele did it for free,
then it would be construed as a violation of US law, it would be
considered a donation to the campaign. The Democrats were smart,
they used Fusion GPS, which in turn hired Steele.
Nice diversion. It is why I hate giving weasels like you cites, you
just ignore them and change the subject.
Thanks for that ad hominem response. The simple facts are that
what the Democrats did in 2016, engaging a research firm to do
opposition research is not illegal or an abuse of power.
A president demanding a foreign govt investigate mostly BS,
Putin lies, or anything else, to help him get re-elected is.
In fact, the Republicans had also engaged with Fusion GPS to
do opposition research, prior to the Democrats. No comparison
between that and the PRESIDENT, extorting a foreign govt,
while illegally withholding US aid.
Your challenge was to give you a cite that up to 30% of the Dossier
was bull**** and I did,
No, you're confused again. The challenge was to give us a cite
where Steele said that 30% of the Dossier was BS. Calling it
BS implies that Steele knew that it was false, made up, ie BS.
AFAIK, Steele has never said that and as I said, from the very
beginning, when he provided the information, he said that it
was raw, unverified intel. And you cite isn't Steele saying
anything, it's from a book where the author quotes what the
author says friends of Steele say he said. We call that hearsay
and a couple of people removed from the source, at that.
But it's a interesting cite for other reasons:
Christopher Steele, believes it to be 70% to 90% accurate, according to a new book on the covert Russian intervention in the 2016 US election.
The book, Collusion: How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win, by the Guardian journalist Luke Harding, quotes Steele as telling friends that he believes his reports €“ based on sources cultivated over three decades of intelligence work €“ will be vindicated as the US special counsel investigation digs deeper into contacts between Trump, his associates and Moscow.
€œIve been dealing with this country for 30 years. Why would I invent this stuff?€ Steele is quoted as saying.
One of the reasons his dossier was taken seriously in Washington in 2016 was Steeles reputation in the US for producing reliable reports on Russia, according to Hardings book.
Between 2014 and 2016, he authored more than a hundred reports on Russia and Ukraine, which were commissioned by private clients but shared widely within the state department and passed across the desks of the secretary of state, John Kerry, and the assistant secretary Victoria Nuland, who led the US response to the annexation of Crimea and the covert invasion of eastern Ukraine.
The sources for those reports were the same as those quoted in the dossier on Trump, which included allegations that the Kremlin had personally compromising material on the US president, including sex tapes recorded during a trip to Moscow in 2013, and that Trump and his associates actively colluded with Russian intelligence to influence the election in his favour.
Years earlier, Steele shared the results of his investigation of the global football organisation, Fifa, with a senior FBI official in Rome; that led to an investigation by US federal prosecutors, and ultimately the arrest of seven Fifa officials.
Then you went off on a Putin rant without as
much as a slight acknowledgement of the cite (from Steele himself).
Tomorrow you will be saying I never gave you the cite.
I might as well be talking to Rod Speed
Let's review. You posted:
"I am still waiting to see that tape, Until then it is just part of the 30% bull**** Steele admits is in his dossier."
That makes it sound like Steele presented it as 100% accurate
and later admitted that 30% was false, just BS that he made up.
AFAIK, he always presented it as what it was. Raw information
that was given to him by his sources on Russia that he believed
were credible. And to this day, while some of it has been
proven to not be true,
AFAIK, most of it still can't be
verified one way or the other. If you were the FBI and it
was presented to you, what would you have done? FActor in that
at the time, Trump was acting very strangely towards Russia,
praising Putin, ignoring their annexation of Crimea and
occupation of Ukraine, asking for them to find Hillary's emails,
lying about having no business dealings with Russia. And
the FBI already had an investigation started into Trump and
Russia, BEFORE the Steele Dossier came forth. They started it
becaise George the Greek was bragging to the Aussie diplomat
in London that the Russians had dirt on Hillary and were going
to release it to help Trump. The Aussies did nothing, figuring
it was just smoke, until Wikileaks started releasing the stolen
emails and then they contacted the FBI. So, what would you have
done with the Steele dossier?